On the other hand, I don’t think you should add those ever
Onfuscators probably use it though, so no spec ever will be able to get rid of this crap.
Can I vote for obsfuscators not holding a language hostage?
Only if I can vote for sandwiches not falling apart when I eat them
Best I can do is tie your pension to it.
Sure. But in a sane language doing something totally nonsensical like that is an error, and in a statically typed language it’s a compiler error. It doesn’t just silently do weird shit.
Agreed! Unfortunately these maddening behaviors were kind of set in stone several decades ago, and it has been (correctly) decided “Don’t break the web”, these weird quirks are kept in modern interpreters/compilers.
It’s actually quite interesting to read through the logic to follow when implementing an interpreter:
https://262.ecma-international.org/13.0/#sec-object.prototype.tostring
What’s a sane, dynamically typed language?
Lisp?
I was trying to make a point without starting a flamewar that was beside the point. Personally I’d never choose a dynamically typed language for a production system. That being said, Python and Ruby complain if you try to add an array, dict/hashmap, string, or number to another (of a different type) so they’re certainly more sane than JavaScript.
Any of them which are still strongly typed. Just because a language doesn’t check for type errors before runtime doesn’t mean it won’t check at all
a sane language
JavaScript
Pick one.
I thought it was clear I was saying JavaScript is not a sane language for this very reason
